Reading mode: Light Dark

16-35/2.8L, 24/1.4L or 24-70/2.8L

Go to last post
S

sparkie

Leading Member
Messages
783
Solutions
1
Reaction score
33
Location
NY, US
Lets say if you have a 70-200 lens already, and could only have one out of the three lenses above to pair with the 70-200 on a travel shoot, which would you take?

As much as I like the 24-70, I'm thinking the 16-35 would give a better range at the 'other' end. and I wouldnt miss the 50mm focal in the mid-range. Ideally just want two lenses in the kit for travel and reportage, and think the 16-35 will give more insurance when my back is against the wall. and between the 16-35 & 70-200 will be able to give a mix of wide to ultra wide and mid-tele, to cover most situations.

Importantly which lens has the least distortion at 24mm: 16-35, 24/1.4 or 24-70?

The 24/1.4 would be really nice to have as in interior shots such as caves, inside ruins etc the 1.4 aperture would be advantageous for hand-holding, however seems soft at 1.4 from reviewed pics. My gut feeling is that the 16-35 may just have that added flexibility that will be indispensible in the majority of situations.

One hesitation with the 16-35 is the mixed reviews and experiences of this lens. Again must be sample variation. What are your experiences. Was it a keeper?

Would also like to hear from travel photogs what sort of kit combination is your favourite..

Thanks for your input.
 
The 24 1.4 is my indoors-candid-lens. No doubt it´s soft in the corners, but it´s fast - on a 20d the perfect "normal" lens.
 
I would stronglyh suggest the 16-35L. It is a great lens and most of the bad press you read here are not true. Often people will assuage their cheapo purchases by bashing the best expensive model. The 3rd parties have no lens in this focal length to come close to the 16-35 in sharpness, color rendition, and contrast, not to mention build and weather proofing seals.

If you get the 16-35, you still have the gaping hole in the middle, that you cannot ignore while traveling. I would suggest taking care of the middle by getting a 50mm F1.4.

The 24L lens has less distortion then the 16-35 however the 16-35 is the better way to go because it is a zoom and zoom means versatility.

If you do museums, you will NEED a fast lens, and so the 16-35 will often be too slow, especially when flash is band....so this advise smacks of a strong buy for the 50mm F1.4....you need a fast lens...don't make the mistake of thinking that your very noiseless Canon DSLR is fine at 1600ISO...sure it is the cleanest but it's all relative....in my book it's still not clean enough.

--
********************************************
It's not just the photographer...it's the equipment too that CAN matter.
 
I have the 16-35 and 135 2.0L. I highly recommend the 16-35. Very sharp, very fast and very versatile. The balance is also very nice with the weight of the 20d. If I could have only one lens it would be the 16-35. The 135 is my fun lens. It's simply unbelievable. With any lens below 2.8 you have to really watch your depth of field though. The 16-35 at 2.8 is just right, you don't lose DoF in group shots. I find both of these lens to be at their best at 4.0 for sharpness with a bit of background blur.
 
I spent years using, with film a 35mm, 590mm and 105mm lens set.

Since the 70-200 is almost 105, and the 16-35 is almost 50, ity seems to me this combo would work well on a 1.6 crop camera.

BAK
 
being myself before the same choice (soon), I was thinking of the following 2 combos :

1) 24-70 + 70-200 if the accent is on photographing people
an interesting landscape could be taken by stitching together 2 24 mm images

2) 16-35 + 70-200 if it is for photographing buildings, landscapes, and people
perhaps to complete with the 50-1,4 as others suggested

…
 
Answers to this question are going to be based on personal taste when it comes to angle of view.

I just returned from a ten day shoot in the Caribbean and leave on another one in a week. I shoot tropical imagery for a living and find that I often shoot the wide glass more than the long. So, in ten days of shooting just over 60 gigabytes worth of images, I used a 17-40 or 16-35 for 99% of the shots and a 24-70 for the remaining 1%. I use 1:1 camera bodies (1Ds mkII's)

Another person in the same location for the same client would just as well have had an opposite take on what glass to use for the entire job.

Good luck with your choice/
mark
http://www.markpix.com
 
 
its not showing on those links, the images codes on the two images on Getty are: Image 200027746-001 & Image 200128975-001
 
sparkie said:
its not showing on those links, the images codes on the two images
on Getty are: Image 200027746-001 & Image 200128975-001
Click to expand...
The first image number you list was shot with the 14mm 2.8. The second one was made with the 15mm 2.8 fish-eye.

I don't use any software to compensate for any distortion. For stock imagery, I return from a trip, submit them to my editor at Getty, then burn their selections to CD and submit as they came out of the camera. Occasionally I pump up the colors a bit via "selective color" in Photoshop but that's it. I simply don't have time to fuss with images eternally before moving on to the next project. Right now I have about five days between international trips/shoots and the last thing I want to do is spend my time at home fussing with image software. There are fish that need to be caught and that is a whole lot more fun than playing on the computer :-)
 
hatidua said:
sparkie said:
its not showing on those links, the images codes on the two images
on Getty are: Image 200027746-001 & Image 200128975-001
Click to expand...
The first image number you list was shot with the 14mm 2.8. The
second one was made with the 15mm 2.8 fish-eye.

I don't use any software to compensate for any distortion. For
stock imagery, I return from a trip, submit them to my editor at
Getty, then burn their selections to CD and submit as they came out
of the camera. Occasionally I pump up the colors a bit via
"selective color" in Photoshop but that's it. I simply don't have
time to fuss with images eternally before moving on to the next
project. Right now I have about five days between international
trips/shoots and the last thing I want to do is spend my time at
home fussing with image software. There are fish that need to be
caught and that is a whole lot more fun than playing on the
computer :-)
Click to expand...
i'm really surprised the 2nd fish-eye image has so little distortion, especially for a fish-eye lens. is that the way it came out of the camera (because of the long'ish distance from lens to horizon) or did Getty do some PP on it.

the 14/2.8 isnt highly regarded on Fredmirand.com reviews. (how do you think the 16-35 rates as a lens). nevertheless, those two images really stood out for me - the dramatic use of the wide angle, very atmospheric. great composition and a stunning location too!

can you point me to some of your fav images shot with the 16-35. i have other questions but may be more appropriate via email. can i email you directly?
 
I had the 17-40, and now have the 24-70 and 16-35.

I tend to shoot wide more than tele, and much perfer the focal length of the 16-35 to the 24-70. BUT, the 24-70 is so spankingly sharp and contrasty, with very little flare, that I find I use it more than I had expected. I rate this lens a 10, and one of the best I've ever used.

The 16-35 I have seems to have a flare problem. Mcuh worse than the 17-40 I had. I rate this lens a 7. I would rate the 17-40 I had a 8.5.

So my ratings here are not based on the idea that I can't afford the 16-35, as I already have it, but I'm really just not that impressd with it's performance. It's suseptability to serious flare is the real issue. I've seen shots where people have framed the sun with this lens and I wonder how that's possible?

I also wonder if this is something wrong with my lens and Canon could do something about it. Otherwise the lens is fairly sharp and very contrasty.

--
Ed
http://www.edwardtmartins.com
 
i choose to go prime al the way...

in my walkaround bag: 35 1.4L + 85 1.8 + 135 2L + 1DII + 550EX

other primes 200 2.8L II and 300 2.8L IS

primes on wish list for the next year: 14 2.8L + 500 4L IS

and another 1 series body... in doubt between 1DsII or another 1DII... but then again... maybe there will be another 1 series new next year...

i have the 24-70 2.8L and 70-200 2.8L IS both just under a year old, but i'm going to sell these...

carlo
--
have a nice day :-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top